The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

reply to post by BayesLike


You said:

it is far more reasonable to assume the observers saw something else.

Okay, tell me, what should I assume that's far more reasonable than the ET hypothesis that the observers saw. What explains U.F.O.'s evading planes, malfunctioning nukes, looking like spacecraft, hovering over and following cars, trace evidence, physical evidence, radar reports, close encounters, eyewitnesses from Generals, Pilots, Police Officers and more.

Go ahead, tell me exactly what I should assume that these observers saw. What fits the data?

reply to post by neoholographic

The ET hypothesis only exists because of the data surrounding U.F.O.'s. How can I use the data to verify a hypothesis that exist because of the data?

Ding! Ding! Ding!
Another winner.

You just realized the circularity of your hypothesis and that it is not falsifiable.

reply to post by Phage


Sorry Phage but yet again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're the one that brought up verification yet you can't tell me what I'm verifying.

I'll answer the question because it's obvious you can't.

It's obvious when you talk about verification you're talking about the falsification that extraterrestrials don't exist. This has been the point of most of your nonsensical post. You talked about things like showing a multiverse doesn't exist and unicorns creating rainbows doesn't exist.

Like I said, debunkers want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials because they can't debate the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s

There's no need for me to verify or falsify that extraterrestrials don't exist.

I'll ask again.

What exactly would I be verifying? Instead of saying ding ding or whatever you said tell me exactly what I would be verifying if you're not talking about the existence of extraterrestrials?

reply to post by neoholographic


This argument will continue on another 17 pages at this rate. I think there's a 95-98% chance you're boring the hell out of everyone here.... Beginning 10 pages back. I'm not interested in reading how you think everyone else is wrong and you and other believers with the same mindset are right. Nothing new. Fine, believe it.

What I'm interested in now is how you arrive at a 95%-98% chance that the ETH is correct from the available data. I want you to finally address the actual data that you repeatedly link. I'm not about a war of words and definitions. I want you to address these "facts". It seems you have this sit-back and cross your arms attitude of- *see I told you so* after posting these links. Then claim no "blind" debunker will touch this data. I actually don't believe you've studied any of these cases thoroughly enough to even come up with your own evaluation. Surely not enough to debate them with any debunker on this forum. You're simply riding on the coattails of what others tell you, and what others tell you are "facts".

As you said, your belief isn't based on one or two cases. It's based cumulatively on the data and the lack of the debunkers/skeptics ability to give an alternative explanation. Here are a few categories below to start off with that you claim have cases with no alternate explanations or claim the ETH is the best one. Give a few personal examples of these cases for each category. Ideally, with available data that can be studied:

-Radar Reports
-Trace Evidence
-Alien Abductions

With an extremely high probability(95%-98%) belief that aliens are here from your data study, this should be easy.

Phage
reply to post by neoholographic

 

What exactly am I verifying?

You are posting "evidence" in favor of the ET hypothesis. That "evidence" could indicate that some UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials but even if it doesn't it is not possible to show that "no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials.

you are being unreasonable. it is not possible to show that the rapid electromagnetic signals from space are always caused by pulsars. there could be another explanation. in fact, it is not possible to prove any pulsar is the source of these signals. The theory says they are and science and COMMON SENSE tells us the current theory must be correct. Much of scietific knowledge could be discarded if we use your standards. Much science comes down to common sense conclusions. There are many things in science that cannot be proved but they are reasonable assumptions.

ETH is scientific in many respects but much of it depends on an astute appraisal of the facts using common sense. For example, people say that reports contaminate each other; people hear about the greys and see them everywhere because they heard the reports, they argue. But common sense tells us that this is not likely because this is not how the human mind works. People see godzilla, vampires, werewolves, the Star Trek menagerie and all kinds of things in the media but nobody meets captain Kirk or Spock on a ufo. The mind in not as fickle as people argue. Common sense tells us that the consistency of these reports cannot be explained by cross contamination. THIS is what I mean by Common Sense appraisal of the facts.

Evaluating witness data is a very subtle skill. It is NOT (repeat NOT) simply a matter of swallowing what the witness says. There are ways of extrapolating themes and consistent patterns from these testimonies. There are face to face meetings with witnesses that convince researchers they are not nutty people and if non nutty people are saying the same thing over and over again common sense tells us it must be an accurate account. It is Not comparable to Elvis sightings [BayesLike]. Making such a comparison shows a poor understanding of how witness testimony is evaluated.

Your standard dismisses common sense and raises the bar so high that it argues against much of what is considered scientific knowledge. Science cannot look at every object in the universe to see if there is an exception. Nobody has ever seen a black hole...

Phage
reply to post by EnPassant

 

This is the level on which ETH exists. We use our mental faculties in a non scientific way to draw conclusions. I see no reason why this kind of thinking should be inferior to scientific thinking; they both have their limitations but are both valid.

So you agree that in spite of the claims of the OP, the ETH is a not falsifiable scientific hypothesis. That's the point that some of us have been trying to get across.

edit on 4/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

ETH exists on two levels. A common sense appraisal of witness testimony and physical evidence. It is, in part, scientific but I am not sure the physical evidence alone can make the scientific case for ETH. But I Am not aware of all the physical evidence. nobody is and if you could see it all displayed before you I am sure you would be hard pressed to come up with an alternative hypothesis. It is very compelling evidence.

reply to post by neoholographic

Go ahead, tell me exactly what I should assume that these observers saw. What fits the data?

Start with something known to exist and then examine ALL the different ways these things can be misidentified, recalled incorrectly and confabulated. There are whole branches of science that study this. Put the UFO books down and Maybe start there? It could take a while to catch up so the aliens could show up while your investigating alternatives. I wouldn't bank on starting circular arguments and hoping the aliens show up before the thread dies.

neoholographic
Okay, tell me, what should I assume that's far more reasonable than the ET hypothesis that the observers saw. What explains U.F.O.'s evading planes, malfunctioning nukes, looking like spacecraft, hovering over and following cars, trace evidence, physical evidence, radar reports, close encounters, eyewitnesses from Generals, Pilots, Police Officers and more.

Go ahead, tell me exactly what I should assume that these observers saw. What fits the data?

Until they are identified, what they saw were UFOs. But UFOs do not have to be alien. They just have to be unidentified phenomena. The reality is that to show something unknown is alien you can't first assume it is alien and then say you can't think of another explanation so it must be alien. This is circular thinking! Assume the answer, pose a question that fits the answer, and then say it has been proved! UFOs are inherently unknown, which implies there already is no other explanation that you know about for the particular case. You can't assume that makes a UFO alien to the exclusion of other explanations equally far-fetched and especially to the exclusion of simpler.

A claim of seeing a UFO can easily be the result of the observer not knowing enough or being aware enough to identify something rather common during an unusual setting for the observer. After all, many people fall prey to the illusion that stars and planets follow them as they drive along a road lightly lined with trees. In fact, even if you know better, falling for that illusion is common -- it's difficult to "unsee" the following because of how our visual system works. Just like it is difficult to "unsee" an abnormally large moon on the horizon. Are we to believe the moon changes size because people see a size change across a few hours? That would be the same type of logic you propose is OK.
Well, it's not OK.

I'd be more impressed by a plane evading a UFO than some unidentified visual image appearing to have evaded a plane. For all anyone knows, it could be just floaters in eye of the observer and, since the floaters are in the eye and the plane is in the sky, it will always evade the plane. Ditto with UFOs hovering over cars. I suppose your theory assumes nukes can never malfunction on their own? There have been quite a few experiments in shared delusions -- you can induce at lest some others to think they see UFOs in the sky by pointing to a spot in the sky and saying they are a little difficult to see. Getting excited but otherwise appearing normal and believable (perhaps in a police uniform?) helps induce the group delusion. Many people in "spooky" settings think they sense ghosts and some even see them.

Fear and excitement are somewhat contagious in lots of settings. These are good survival instincts but they hamper precise observation. For example, suppose you are camping in the woods and think bears are active in the area. If you hear something snap loudly, you are probably going to leap to a conclusion regarding bears and get worried instantly -- it won't cross your mind to go over to that spot and try to figure out what made the noise. Once the adrenaline is flowing, you are going to hear all sorts of noises. Even if nothing happens, you might tell your buddy at home you heard a bear outside your campsite. But it might have just been a pine cone falling from a tree and the rest was all in your head. Generals and police would do the same.... they aren't special.

Radar is full of artifacts. That is one of the reasons transponders are needed. Trace evidence and close encounters -- especially abductions -- are laughable evidence for the most part. Get the DNA or an artifact instead. If there is no DNA and no technological artifact, its more likely either a misidentification or a delusion. You know if you think you saw a UFO in the woods somewhere and really started looking hard for "trace evidence" you are very likely to find some -- even if you look in the wrong area. People have a habit of finding all sorts of surprising things when they look closely and not noticing anything unusual when they have no reason to look.

So what makes you think a general, policeman, or pilots are qualified to identify a UFO as alien? Maybe a priest or skeptic would do better. When it comes to unusual observations under unusual conditions, these people are no better observers than anyone else. We can listen to their stories and wonder what really happened. That's about it.

Until they are identified, what they saw were UFOs. But UFOs do not have to be alien. They just have to be unidentified phenomena. The reality is that to show something unknown is alien you can't first assume it is alien and then say you can't think of another explanation so it must be alien. This is circular thinking! Assume the answer, pose a question that fits the answer, and then say it has been proved! UFOs are inherently unknown, which implies there already is no other explanation that you know about for the particular case. You can't assume that makes a UFO alien to the exclusion of other explanations equally far-fetched and especially to the exclusion of simpler.

Exactly.

Also, as we haven't met ET yet, we don't know about their possible capabilities or constraints. So they can be conveniently made fit any UFO case out there.

Got an fast moving radar echo, what seems to be a controlled craft exceeding the capabilities of known vehicles. -> Sure ET can do that.

Spotted an object flying across the road. A moment later the car engine stopped. -> Yep, ET can do that too.

Saw a triangular shaped object traveling south-east. It was moving faster than an airplane. -> ET have triangular shaped craft, they prefer saucers though!

Ten or more lights arranged in a boomerang pattern, hovering about a quarter of a mile from one of the gates to the nuclear facility. -> ET love to hover in patterns, didn't you know?


Which makes extraterrestrials a modern version of nature deities.

BayesLike

A claim of seeing a UFO can easily be the result of the observer not knowing enough or being aware enough to identify something rather common during an unusual setting for the observer. After all, many people fall prey to the illusion that stars and planets follow them as they drive along a road lightly lined with trees. In fact, even if you know better, falling for that illusion is common -- it's difficult to "unsee" the following because of how our visual system works. Just like it is difficult to "unsee" an abnormally large moon on the horizon. Are we to believe the moon changes size because people see a size change across a few hours? That would be the same type of logic you propose is OK.
Well, it's not OK.

This shows a very poor understanding of how evidence is evaluated. If someone says they saw a craft - maybe. But if two people saw a craft and reported it behaving in the same ways (falling leaf motion etc.) there may be something in it. And if thousands of people keep saying the same thing over and over, witness testimony takes on a qualitative dimension that arises out of comparative analysis. A statistical picture is built up. You cannot undermine this by questioning just one sighting or treating them as individual episodes.

reply to post by EnPassant


Lets' take one example of a common "sighting": People who say they see something that they thought was a star, but it begins to noticeably "wobble".

It is a known phenomenon that after staring at an object (like a star) for a period of time, an illusion can occur that makes object appear to wobble when it really is not. Considering this is a known illusion , we cannot use the quantity of these reports as evidence that it is anything other than an illusion...

...i.e., it is a fallacy to use the argument "Well, maybe some of these is an illusion, but the high number of these reports leads me to believe it can't be just an illusion".


Granted -- we can get into "wildly zigzagging maneuvers", but that's another issue with other potential explanations (based on the details of the case) beside "aliens".

reply to post by BayesLike


You said:

Until they are identified, what they saw were UFOs. But UFOs do not have to be alien. They just have to be unidentified phenomena. The reality is that to show something unknown is alien you can't first assume it is alien and then say you can't think of another explanation so it must be alien. This is circular thinking! Assume the answer, pose a question that fits the answer, and then say it has been proved! UFOs are inherently unknown, which implies there already is no other explanation that you know about for the particular case. You can't assume that makes a UFO alien to the exclusion of other explanations equally far-fetched and especially to the exclusion of simpler.

What you said is just a huge contradiction. You do understand that the ET hypothesis identifies U.F.O.'s. For some reason debunkers think Unidentified means we can never identify them unless the identification matches something that matches there personal belief system.

So if I identify a U.F.O. as a chinese lantern that's fine. If I identify a U.F.O. as a weather balloon that's fine. But I can never identify them based on the evidence. This is why you never answered the question.

What explanation explains the evidence better than the ET hypothesis? What explanation fits the data better than the ET hypothesis?

U.F.O.'s are not inherently unknown unless you just ignore all of the evidence.

Radar reports

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Vehicle interference cases

www.ufoevidence.org...

Electromagnetic effects

www.ufoevidence.org...

Physical evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

Government U.F.O. Documents

www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O. articles published in scientific journals

www.ufoevidence.org...

There's more evidence for the ET hypothesis than there is for a lot of theories in science today.

You and others just want U.F.O.'s to remain unidentified ad infinitum or until there's an explanation that you can accept. Science doesn't work that way. We don't say, we will just ignore the mountains of evidence because you don't want to accept the data.

You said:

So what makes you think a general, policeman, or pilots are qualified to identify a UFO as alien? Maybe a priest or skeptic would do better. When it comes to unusual observations under unusual conditions, these people are no better observers than anyone else. We can listen to their stories and wonder what really happened. That's about it.

This is just another common fallacy coming from debunkers. Generals, Pilots and others are very strong witnesses because they are trained to pay attention to detail. This is something debunkers don't do. They don't weigh the credibility of the witness. They want to throw all observers into the same box. This is just basic common sense.

When you say these people are no better observers than anyone else that's just not the case. Like I said, they are trained to pay attention to detail. Debunkers just throw common sense out of the window and just like they want to lump together unicorns creating rainbows with the ET hypothesis they want to lump all observers together and say they're all the same. How can you honestly evaluate the evidence when you make statements like this?

Eyewitnesses are very important to science especially when they're seeing something unknown. They pay even more attention to detail. I remember my 3 sighting. Two were up close and I remember every detail and the memory is so vivid. This is because when you see something unknown, you pay attention to detail even more.

In science, eyewitness are very important especially when it comes to observed phenomena like comets, meteors, the northern lights and more. Let's look what happened with meteors:

Silliman believed the meteor had a cosmic origin, but meteors did not attract much attention from astronomers until the spectacular meteor storm of November 1833.[51] People all across the eastern United States saw thousands of meteors, radiating from a single point in the sky. Astute observers noticed that the radiant, as the point is now called, moved with the stars, staying in the constellation Leo.[52]

The astronomer Denison Olmsted made an extensive study of this storm, and concluded it had a cosmic origin. After reviewing historical records, Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers predicted the storm's return in 1867, which drew the attention of other astronomers to the phenomenon.

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientist had to depend on ASTUTE OBSERVERS to get a better understanding of meteors.

Now if scientist would have stuck their heads in the sand and said all observers are the same, they wouldn't have had a better understanding of meteors and how they behave.

So, this is why debunkers shouldn't be listened to in most cases when it comes to these debates. It's because common sense is thrown out and everything is lumped together. Basic common sense tells you all observers are not the same and you will have some strong eyewitnesses and some weak eyewitnesses. Debunkers can't grasp this simple distinction.

neoholographic

What you said is just a huge contradiction. You do understand that the ET hypothesis identifies U.F.O.'s.

Cite s SINGLE instance where a U.F.O. was positively identified as an intelligently-controlled craft of extraterrestrial origin.

The ETH identifies nothing. It is unverified speculation.

Vallee rejects the ETH in favor of the interdimensional hypothesis.

Its still 'alien' both ways. What is the difference between entities that come from some planet and those who come from a different dimension? Aren't they aliens after all?

reply to post by neoholographic

For some reason debunkers think Unidentified means we can never identify them unless the identification matches something that matches there personal belief system.

That is not true. Aliens are in my belief system but it is impossible to Identify something as "alien" when we don't know what constitutes an alien. The aliens I believe in are much more advanced the ones you believe in. My aliens send beams into peoples brains that make them hallucinate magical UFOs. This is why its important to understand perception because we will stay 10 steps ahead. While you are ooing and awing over flying saucers they will be taking your socks and stuff.

Every sighting is right in line with human perception/misperceptions. They know that most people don't understand their own limitations and they take full advantage over this tendency humans have towards ignorance. Your postings are a prime example.

Think about it. They erase memories of abductees. Don't you think they can implant memories and make you see things also?

BTW can one person explain to me why these need to be aliens in the first place?

Its one possibility. Other possibilities are..

One would think that after 6000 years of writing and modern communication we would have more than pictures and eye witness reports, but we don't, and the eye witness is the worst form of evidence going.

There are some pancakes given to Mr.Paul Simonton and more cases like these.

Eye witness reports are the key in the court of law. But when it comes to spotting ufos, people simply lie for the sake of it.

The thread seems to have diverted from the OP. The falsification of the null hypothesis is the topic.

The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

It has turned into a topic to validate the ETH which would be a separate thread all together.

And to the OP's point. Can anyone say the null hypothesis is not falsifiable? Meaning that it is true to say "No U.F.O.s are controlled by ETs.? I cannot.

reply to post by radkrish

Its still 'alien' both ways. What is the difference between entities that come from some planet and those who come from a different dimension? Aren't they aliens after all?

There is nothing different, they are both not known to exist. We can add time travelers, Natzis, x-men, atlantians, god, angels, demons and anything else you can think of. or we can look at current knowledge of human perceptions and memory which is very misunderstood and flat ignored.

usertwelve
The thread seems to have diverted from the OP. The falsification of the null hypothesis is the topic.

The Alternative Hypothesis says, some U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials.

It has turned into a topic to validate the ETH which would be a separate thread all together.

yes the thread should have died on the first page. There is no way to prove " No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials"

a more logical approach is that UFOs are unknown or we can say " no UFOs are controlled by extraterrestrials " which would be falsifiable simply by catching an alien.